On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Phil Knirsch <pknirsch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/06/2013 05:43 AM, Jon wrote:
> Another item I'd like to consider for the initial discussion is the
> release cycle for the base design. My feeling is that base is small
> enough and simple enough to allow a more frequent release, perhaps even
> continuously. My guess is the other WGs will have their own ideas for
> how frequently they output. So base WG would need to be the lowest
> common denominator in that way. Obviouly rel-eng and qa need to
> represent for this topic. :-)
Right, release cycle will definitely be a hot topic, and i'd like us to
investigate different types as well, e.g. not a time based but a major
feature based cycle (e.g. new upstream kernel -> new release), continuous,
support time for releases, what about feature backports and so forth. Lots
revolving around those topics i think.
Unless you want to do a release every 3 months, the kernel probably
isn't going to be a good thing to key off of. I mean, it's a thing we
could do, but if we did that we'd probably want to treat it in a
fashion where a new Base release can fit into an older product release
for some reasonable definition of old. Similar to how we rebase the
kernel in existing releases today, with perhaps a bit more lead time
and QA.
One request i also already got was if we in the Base WG could take a
look at
containers/sandboxes for applications as well. Basically so that the
technology could be used by any derived product built on top of Base. And as
there are currently multiple competing technologies being worked on
(docker.io, systemd containers, libvirt-lxc, openshift cartridges) we'd need
to evaluate those and decide which one(s) we'd want to offer as a
"standard"
from the Base product.
Yes, the Workstation WG is interested in this as well.
josh